Sports Safeguarding: When Does Denial Become a Lack of Insight?
The Growing Importance of Insight in Sports Safeguarding Cases
Insight has become an increasingly important consideration in sports safeguarding cases, particularly when disciplinary commissions and appeal panels come to consider sanction. Questions surrounding insight, denial and future risk have therefore become increasingly significant within sports safeguarding proceedings
When Denial May Indicate a Lack of Insight in Sports Safeguarding Cases
There will undoubtedly be cases where a refusal to accept findings properly gives rise to concerns. A participant who rejects safeguarding principles, demonstrates no understanding of the standards expected of them, or refuses to engage with the concerns identified by a governing body may well be found to lack insight.
What concerns me, however, is whether disciplinary tribunals sometimes move too quickly from continued denial to a finding of absent insight, as though one necessarily follows from the other.
It is not difficult to see why the temptation exists. If a participant maintains their innocence after findings have been made against them, it may be thought that they have failed to reflect upon their conduct or understand the reasons for the decision. Yet the position is not always so straightforward.
The Difference Between Challenging Findings and Understanding Safeguarding Principles
A participant may continue to believe that allegations should never have been upheld whilst nevertheless accepting that a tribunal has reached a different conclusion. They may disagree with the findings but recognise that the decision must be respected. They may understand safeguarding concerns, appreciate the standards expected of them and intend to abide by those standards in the future. Whether they accept the correctness of the findings and whether they understand the safeguarding principles arising from them are not necessarily the same question.
Why This Distinction Matters in Assessing Future Risk
That distinction matters because, in practice, the reasoning can sometimes appear rather compressed. A participant denies the misconduct. The denial is treated as evidence of a lack of insight. The lack of insight is then relied upon as demonstrating greater future risk. The sanction that follows is consequently more severe.
The problem is not that such reasoning can never be correct. The problem is that it risks overlooking the possibility that a participant may continue to dispute what happened whilst still understanding how they are expected to conduct themselves going forward.
Appeals, Fairness and the Right to Challenge Decisions
The issue becomes particularly acute once proceedings reach the appellate stage. Disciplinary systems rightly provide participants with opportunities to challenge findings and sanctions. Those rights are not merely procedural formalities. They are an important safeguard against error and an essential component of fairness. It therefore sits somewhat uneasily with the proposition that a participant's continuing disagreement with findings may itself become evidence of poor insight when the system has expressly afforded them the right to challenge those findings or the sanction imposed.
After all, there is an obvious difference between a participant who rejects the authority of a governing body and a participant who disagrees with the outcome reached by it. The former may well raise concerns regarding future compliance with safeguarding standards. The latter may simply be exercising a right which the disciplinary process itself has conferred.
A Practical Example from a Sporting Appeal
The point was brought into focus for me in a recent appeal involving a lengthy sporting suspension. The sanction under consideration carried consequences extending well beyond participation in the sport itself. The individual's involvement in the sport formed an important part of their professional standing and livelihood. Unsurprisingly, they continued to challenge findings which they believed to be wrong whilst arguing that the sanction imposed was disproportionate.
Whether that challenge succeeded or failed is beside the point. What interested me was whether the continued challenge truly answered the separate question of insight.
I am not convinced it did.
The Risks of Equating Insight with Acceptance of Guilt
There is a further difficulty. If insight becomes synonymous with acceptance of guilt, participants may begin to conclude that the safest route to a more favourable sanction is to abandon their position and admit wrongdoing, irrespective of whether they genuinely believe the findings to be correct. That would be an unfortunate consequence. Disciplinary proceedings should encourage honesty, reflection and engagement with safeguarding concerns. They should not create incentives for confessions of convenience.
What Should Tribunals Look for When Assessing Insight in Sports Safeguarding Cases?
The purpose of assessing insight is not simply to establish whether a participant now agrees with the tribunal's conclusions. Rather, it is to assist in evaluating future risk. A participant who maintains their innocence may nevertheless understand the concerns that have arisen, appreciate the standards expected of them and be entirely capable of complying with those standards in the future. Equally, a participant who formally accepts wrongdoing does not necessarily demonstrate genuine understanding or reduced risk.
If insight is relevant because it assists tribunals in assessing future risk, then the more useful questions are whether a participant understands the standards expected of them, appreciates why those standards exist and can be trusted to comply with them in future. Those issues go directly to protection, which is what safeguarding is ultimately about.
Balancing Effective Safeguarding with Fairness
None of this is intended to diminish the importance of safeguarding. On the contrary, effective safeguarding depends upon robust regulation, clear standards and a willingness to intervene where risks are identified. Equally, however, confidence in safeguarding systems depends upon confidence in their fairness.
A participant can accept that findings have been made without accepting that they are correct. They can appeal a sanction without rejecting safeguarding principles. They can continue to disagree with a tribunal's conclusions whilst still understanding the standards expected of them in the future.
Conclusion: Denial Is Not Always a Lack of Insight
If safeguarding is concerned with protection and future risk, those distinctions matter. The question of whether denial demonstrates a lack of insight in sports safeguarding cases requires careful consideration.